Thursday, May 10, 2012

Hanif should be the last person to head probe of Bersih 3.0 violence

Hanif should be the last person to head probe of
Bersih 3.0 violence as he should be one of the “star” witnesses to
substantiate his allegations that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt which
involved pro-communist sympathizers

--Lim Kit Siang

It is most ironical that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib
Razak said in an interview on Sinar.FM radio station this morning that
as Prime Minister he could not even afford a single mistake, and “if we
have to make 10 major decisions, we need to get 10 out of 10 right”, as
he had just made probably his worst decision in his three-year
premiership.

This is the appointment of former Inspector-General of Police, Tun
Hanif Omar as chairman of the six-member Independent Advisory Panel to
investigate the Bersih 3.0 violence and brutality.

Right from the second after the announcement by the Home Minister,
Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein last evening, Hanif’s appointment as
the head of the Bersih 3.0 panel had received immediate brickbats and
all-round disapprobation and condemnation as being utterly
inappropriate, rendering the whole probe not only lacking in
independence but totally bereft of credibility and legitimacy.

I do not think it is possible to find another announcement of the
composition of a public inquiry by the government in the nation’s
54-year history which had attracted such instant and all-round rejection
and condemnation by major national stakeholders in the country!

The answer is very obvious. Hanif is the last person to head the
probe of Bersih 3.0 violence as nobody would believe that he could be
impartial and unbiased after he had publicly supported Najib’s
irresponsible, wild and baseless allegation that Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” at
Dataran Merdeka on April 28 was a coup d’etat attempt by the opposition
to topple the government when there is not one iota of evidence
whatsoever.

And what is Hanif’s proof for him to endorse Najib’s wild and
far-fetched allegation of Bersih 3.0 as a coup to topple the government?

(“There has to be a basis because the prime minister cannot
simply make claims. It could happen and there are always people bidding
their chance to do it for their own interest.”)

Berita Minggu also reported Hanif as saying that Najib must have made
the allegation after receiving intelligence from the Special Branch.

The question is whether Najib received “intelligence” from the
Special Branch that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt by the Opposition to
topple the government before or after Bersih 3.0 on April 28, and if it
was before, why Hishammuddin as Home Minister was given a different
intelligence briefing causing him to say that Bersih 3.0 was not a
security threat as it had “little traction” with the people?

Furthermore, why did’nt Najib reveal such intelligence of a coup attempt to topple the government before April 28?

If the Bersih 3.0 Panel is going to be a comprehensive and
authoritative probe into the Bersih 3.0 violence, both Najib and
Hishammuddin should appear before it to give testimony about the
“intelligence” they had received about Bersih 3.0, both before and after
April 28.

In fact, Hanif is the last person to be considered to head the
Bersih 3.0 probe as he should be one of the inquiry’s “star” witnesses
to substantiate his allegations that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt which
involved pro-communist sympathizers!

On May 1, at 6.25 pm, Bernama carried the following report which was published by New Straits Times the next morning as follows:

‘Pro-communist elements seen at Bersih rally’
SHAH ALAM: Former inspector-general of police Tun Hanif Omar said
pro-communist individuals involved in the 1970s demonstrations were seen
in Saturday’s rally in Kuala Lumpur, which turned violent.
“I recognise from the photos and broadcast images (taken from the
rally), the pro-communist people who were involved in the 1970s
demonstrations,” Hanif said yesterday.
“The tactics of using provocateurs to cause the demonstrators to
clash with police and to bring children along in the hope they would get
injured were tactics learnt from past pro-communist demonstrations.”
Hanif was clarifying a Bernama report on Monday which quoted him as
saying that the gathering could have been masterminded by various
parties, including several individuals who tried to spread the communist
ideology. Bernama
http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/pro-communist-elements-seen-at-bersih-rally-1.79784

Hanif should appear before the probe into the Bersih 3.0 violence to
substantiate not only his endorsement of the Prime Minister’s wild
allegation that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt to topple the government,
but his own allegation of involvement of “pro-communist individuals
involved in the 1970s demonstrations” in Bersih 3.0 using
“pro-communist”, “provocateur tactics” “to cause the demonstrators to
clash with police and to bring children along in the hope they would get
injured”.

Without casting any aspersions on Hanif’s integrity, I would
respectfully suggest that he should spare himself, the Bersih 3.0 probe
and the Najib administration any public embarrassment by declining
appointment as head of the Bersih 3.0 probe, for the simple reason that
he should be appearing before it as a “star witness” rather than its
head, in view of his publicly declared position on Bersih 3.0 rally.

Apart from Hanif’s appointment as head, the composition of the
members (in particular the exclusion of representatives from Suhakam and
Bar Council) as well as the lack of a proper and acceptable terms of
reference are also matters of grave concern to all Malaysians who would
want to see a truly impartial inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence to
ensure that justice is done to all victims of Bersih 3.0 violence and
brutality, regardless of whether police, media representatives or
peaceful protestors and to demonstrate that Malaysia is capable of
maturing to become the world’s best democracy.